Someone like Bill
Posted 09/09/2008 11:46 am
A few reasons why I say no way...
1. Overdates did not occur on Lincoln cents. The date was hubbed into the die with the rest of the devices.
2. If there were a 1943/2 DDO on Lincoln cents - especially with all the extra study steel cents have received - I would think it would be known by now. Chances are WAY outside on something like that still being unknown, undiscovered, and unreported.
3. The anomaly that appears could match the shape of a 2 is far too close to the 4 of the date for it to be a 1942 date. If this were a 2, it would have to fall in line with the 4 in the exact position it would normally be on a 1942 cent...this one is way off.
4. The anomaly is flat - just a stain, and is not raised as would be the case with a doubled die.
5. The coin is not in very good shape, which could easily answer for its anomalous appearance. If this had been a raised area in the right place on a BU coin, I'd be very interested.
1. Overdates did not occur on Lincoln cents. The date was hubbed into the die with the rest of the devices.
2. If there were a 1943/2 DDO on Lincoln cents - especially with all the extra study steel cents have received - I would think it would be known by now. Chances are WAY outside on something like that still being unknown, undiscovered, and unreported.
3. The anomaly that appears could match the shape of a 2 is far too close to the 4 of the date for it to be a 1942 date. If this were a 2, it would have to fall in line with the 4 in the exact position it would normally be on a 1942 cent...this one is way off.
4. The anomaly is flat - just a stain, and is not raised as would be the case with a doubled die.
5. The coin is not in very good shape, which could easily answer for its anomalous appearance. If this had been a raised area in the right place on a BU coin, I'd be very interested.
Also, the 2 looks much smaller than a normal 2 would be by about 40%.
